The Myths of Vatican II

Mass at Vatican II: no guitars, drums, dancers, streamers

In this CBSNews Story, much is made of the divide between the progressive wing of the Catholic Church and the allegedly hidebound hierarchy and traditionalists who are interested, we are to believe, solely in control and power, and in keeping women in a state of perpetual servitude. It is incredibly frustrating to read stories like this one because so much of its central premise is completely false and it necessarily results in the absurdity of rest of the arguments presented. The central premise in this example, as in so many, is the infallibility of the allegedly true disciples of Vatican II. In this piece, these authentic followers are the liberal nuns in the United States and their allies. According to this agitprop, these nuns and their admirers are the authentic torchbearers for the Vatican II agenda, which had (allegedly) as its primary aim, the decentralization of the Catholic Church. From the story:

Catholics were no longer expected, as some put it, to simply "pay, pray and obey," but now could make their own decisions about their faith.

Another reform hallmark of Vatican II: Use of the English-language Mass.

Where was it ever implied that Catholics can "make their own decisions about their faith"? Why remain Catholic if you can do that? Starting your own religion sounds much more attractive and fun. The part about the Mass is also completely inaccurate, as the Council actually reaffirmed the time-honored role of Latin within the Liturgy, allowing the use of the vernacular only for limited parts of the Mass.

These true-blue daughters of the Council, who thought they were predestined by God to complete the circle started by Vatican II, are now watching in dismay, perceiving the clock being turned back, as the young guns, the new seminarians and religious sisters, are actually expressing an interest in tradition and demonstrate a savvy knowledge and reading of Vatican II that is diametrically opposed to their old way of reading it. In other words, you have "The Spirit of Vatican II" movement, favored by liberal activists and then you have The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. What the media fails to recognize, either by ignorance or design, is that these two concepts represent completely different things. Much of the discussion about Vatican II is pathetically devoid of any serious knowledge of what the Council documents actually state, and instead bandies about this carefully crafted myth of Vatican II's "spirit" as some sort of Hegelian, revolutionary act that set the gears in motion for a fundamental, root and stem rejiggering of the Catholic Church from the top down. It bears repeating: This interpretation is completely false and unfounded, and yet it is astonishing to note how much mileage is gained from the rehashing of this old storyline.

Another resilient line dogging the post-Vatican II Church is that the Church of today consists of two entities duking it out for control of the right to be truly Catholic. In one corner is the patriarchal hierarchy, committed to its old ways with its command center in the Vatican, and in the other corner are the liberals and dissenters, fighting the good fight, and that, if anything, these renegades are more authentically 'Church' than the mossy hierarchy, with its endless obsession with morality. Of course, the media has a vested interest in aiding and abetting the latter side, since they share the same objectives, i.e., social engineering on gender issues, promoting abortion, etc. Their goal is to create an alter-'Catholic' church that is basically a de-sacramentalized institution, stripped of those medieval and oppressive notions like priest, sin, hell, bishop, and so on. Liberals, especially the feminists (and believe me, there are scads of them underneath the rocks of dying religious orders) absolutely love to play this card. "It's us, the righteous, democratic ones, the victims verses the Old Boys Club, i.e., the pope and his sycophantic minions."

Across society, radical feminists have long sought to emasculate men and erase an awareness of traditional manliness. This has been accomplished by competing with men on their own playing field and by mocking men as boorish, violent and ultimately superfluous. In many segments of our society, feminists have seen remarkable triumphs. The Catholic Church, lead by the Holy Father and the bishops, represent Leonidas and the 300, perhaps the last institution standing that, according to the feminist template, has stubbornly refused to collapse like a house of cards under the weight of their calls for capitulation. If you can't beat 'em, marginalize 'em, so the strategy goes. This is not to say that feminists have scored zero victories in their fight with the Church. The soft-sofa, Oprahfication of the liturgy, which has seen the marginalization of the priest in favor of a greater inclusion of women in various newfangled liturgical roles, has its origin in the feminist movement. The people, we are told, need to see that the Mass is not just about the male priest, but also about the female 'Eucharistic ministers' and the altar girls, and so on.

If anything, there needs to be a "Setting the Record Straight on Vatican II" document from the leadership, in which the most common misreadings of the Council documents are definitively corrected and clarified so that when the media sets out to make sweeping, dumb assertions about Vatican II, there will at least be a way to fact check. Of course, just reading the documents will also do. Vatican II never endorsed the idea that nuns should jettison the habit and the convent in favor swank apartments, liberal social activism and embracing dissent from Church authority. These folks fancy themselves as victims, but that is merely a rhetorical ploy to gain traction by tugging on the heartstrings. I have little patience for the crocodile tears of people who have had a hand in undermining the Church in the name of Vatican II for the past forty years, causing untold confusion among the faithful.

It's a bit ironic, because these liberal nuns and their friends love to whisper about the allegedly avaricious power-hoarding on the part a controlling male-dominated hierarchy, while making it perfectly clear that they themselves have one thing in mind: acquiring power and control. I once read a quote by Nancy Pelosi in which she reminisced about her childhood dream to be a priest. She said that, while she loved the sisters who taught her, she knew that the priests were the ones with the power.

Liberals, no matter where you find them, in the Church or out of it, have one goal in mind and that is power. The Holy Father has spoken eloquently on the real meaning of leadership, as being rooted in service and in serving the goal of unity, which is ultimately rooted in authentic love, which calls for a total outpouring, a gift of self, something antithetical to a quest for amassing power. As far as his office is concerned, the pope's declarations are not exercises in raw power, or the expressions of the mere opinion of a man, but rather a manifestation of the unbroken inheritance of a 2,000 year-old institution, founded by Christ.